February average temperatures - disturbing

[Twilight Hue]

Actually, no. What it means is that the insurance companies are having to pay out more and more because of climate change - and they accept the science that tells them it is only to get worse - so like any for-profit industry, they are passing the increased costs on to you and me.

Which in turn is good for business.

 

[Regiomontanus]

Which in turn is good for business.

Not sure about that. They will (or have in a some cases already) stop coverage in some areas completely because the liability is just too high - they will and are starting to lose money at a rate that they can not realistically pass on to everyone else. I know quite a bit about actuarial science (the math of the insurance industry) and trust me, they know what the deal is. This is very straight forward brother.

 

[Kenny]

Why do you say that it is conjecture? You do not get to claim that without refuting the current models, which have been very accurate to date if you go with the estimates in the middle. The best case scenarios have never occurred, but then neither have the worst case scenarios either. So when the worst case scenario for sea level rise by the end of the century is 8 feet I do not take that one seriously. Nor do I take the best case scenario of only a foot or so.

Have you followed the projection of hurricanes? Same concept

 

[Subduction Zone]

Have you followed the projection of hurricanes? Same concept

Are you serious? Hurricane wind direction predictions are not 100% accurate, but they are still rather close. Do you not realize that if it was purely chaotic that they could go in any direction at any time? You are complaining about errors of a hundred miles or so. Compare that to a three hundred sixty degree circle that it is possible to move in and they are rarely terribly far off from what they predict.

 

[Heyo]

Which in turn is good for business.

Speaking of business ...
I have a great investment idea. Since all the other insurance companies are following the trend, we can profit from their gullibility. Just deny the science and offer policies that are much cheaper than the competition. If the projected catastrophes don't come, we will still make a sizeable profit, especially as we will dominate the market.
How much are you willing to invest?
(You know, you'll have to have some basis, hundreds of millions, to open an insurance company. But with so many not believing in the science, I suspect investors are lining up.)

 

[Heyo]

I'd rather see it through a scientific lens rather than an alarmist one.

I find the science very alarming.

 

[Heyo]

I'm simply asking questions.

It's not "simply asking questions", the term is "just asking questions".

 

[Heyo]

Who cares if it's a little warmer this year? Get out and enjoy it!

But don't forget to prepare for more and more dangerous ticks and mosquitos.

 

[Audie]

I know I wouldn't be able to have as much as I have here.

Like room for all your steam engines.

 

[Revoltingest]

Like room for all your steam engines.

Exactly.
I have about 15,000 sq feet of storage space.
2 forklifts, 1 motorcyle, 3 trucks, 2 cars, &
countless antique machines / engines / tools.
Couldn't do all that on a groundskeeper's wage
in other countries....except for Canuckistan.

 

[Regiomontanus]

Have you followed the projection of hurricanes? Same concept

The limitation has always mainly been our computing power, which is why the projections are getting better. The models use large systems of differential equations and the more detail you include in the models, the more computationally expensive. So simplifications have to be made in the models, which increases the uncertainty.

"Enhanced computing and storage capacity will allow NOAA to deploy higher-resolution models to better capture small-scale features like severe thunderstorms, more realistic model physics to better capture the formation of clouds and precipitation, and a larger number of individual model simulations to better quantify model certainty. The end result is even better forecasts and warnings to support public safety and the national economy."

U.S. supercomputers for weather and climate forecasts get major bump

Today, NOAA inaugurated the nation’s newest weather and climate supercomputers with an operational run of the National Blend of Models. The new supercomputers, first announced in February 2020 with a contract award to General Dynamics Information Technology (GDIT), provide a significant upgrade...

www.noaa.gov

 

[Kenny]

Are you serious? Hurricane wind direction predictions are not 100% accurate, but they are still rather close. Do you not realize that if it was purely chaotic that they could go in any direction at any time? You are complaining about errors of a hundred miles or so. Compare that to a three hundred sixty degree circle that it is possible to move in and they are rarely terribly far off from what they predict.

I’m not talking about where is a hurricane going but rather predictions of how many

Let’s look at data. Let me take 2017

Predicted

• 11-17 named storms
• 5-9 hurricanes
• 2-4 major hurricanes

What I note is that there is a “top vs bottom” possibilities. They don’t go more that one year predictions because there are too many factors to be considered. Additionally, I note how far the bottom is from the top. It isn’t hard to predict if you give yourself that much leeway.

Actual

• 8 named storms
• 7 hurricanes
• 3 major hurricanes

Even with such a variance, they totally missed how many named storms although the hit the mark of hurricanes and major hurricanes.

Taking this into consideration, it would be quite difficult to predict earth's temperature 50 - 100 years from now with any certainty. Too many factors. A huge volcanic explosion can change the temperature of our earth (which I think it is immensely possible).

That being said, we should clean our oceans and rivers. Man has much to do with this.

IMV, we should limit the catch of ocean/river cleaning fish such as shrimp and clams.

Noting the change of temperature over time, I can’t come to the conclusion that man is the main cause of temperature change. I’m sure we have some responsibility but I can’t say the main cause since great change has happened when man wasn’t around.

 

[Kenny]

The limitation has always mainly been our computing power, which is why the projections are getting better. The models use large systems of differential equations and the more detail you include in the models, the more computationally expensive. So simplifications have to be made in the models, which increases the uncertainty.

"Enhanced computing and storage capacity will allow NOAA to deploy higher-resolution models to better capture small-scale features like severe thunderstorms, more realistic model physics to better capture the formation of clouds and precipitation, and a larger number of individual model simulations to better quantify model certainty. The end result is even better forecasts and warnings to support public safety and the national economy."

U.S. supercomputers for weather and climate forecasts get major bump

Today, NOAA inaugurated the nation’s newest weather and climate supercomputers with an operational run of the National Blend of Models. The new supercomputers, first announced in February 2020 with a contract award to General Dynamics Information Technology (GDIT), provide a significant upgrade...

www.noaa.gov

Please see the post after yours for clarification

 

[Regiomontanus]

Noting the change of temperature over time, I can’t come to the conclusion that man is the main cause of temperature change. I’m sure we have some responsibility but I can’t say the main cause since great change has happened when man wasn’t around.

Sorry, but that is because you do not understand the science.

 

[Regiomontanus]

Please see the post after yours for clarification

Actually, what I said above about computing power applies to your comment about the number of storms too.

 

[Kenny]

Actually, what I said above about computing power applies to your comment about the number of storms too.

The data I used was just 7 years ago. Yes, computers can help but we still have a ways to go

 

[Subduction Zone]

I’m not talking about where is a hurricane going but rather predictions of how many

Let’s look at data. Let me take 2017

Predicted

• 11-17 named storms
• 5-9 hurricanes
• 2-4 major hurricanes

What I note is that there is a “top vs bottom” possibilities. They don’t go more that one year predictions because there are too many factors to be considered. Additionally, I note how far the bottom is from the top. It isn’t hard to predict if you give yourself that much leeway.

Actual

• 8 named storms
• 7 hurricanes
• 3 major hurricanes

Even with such a variance, they totally missed how many named storms although the hit the mark of hurricanes and major hurricanes.

Taking this into consideration, it would be quite difficult to predict earth's temperature 50 - 100 years from now with any certainty. Too many factors. A huge volcanic explosion can change the temperature of our earth (which I think it is immensely possible).

That being said, we should clean our oceans and rivers. Man has much to do with this.

IMV, we should limit the catch of ocean/river cleaning fish such as shrimp and clams.

Noting the change of temperature over time, I can’t come to the conclusion that man is the main cause of temperature change. I’m sure we have some responsibility but I can’t say the main cause since great change has happened when man wasn’t around.

Okay, but now you have no case. You are comparing apples and pizzas.

 

[Audie]

Exactly.
I have about 15,000 sq feet of storage space.
2 forklifts, 1 motorcyle, 3 trucks, 2 cars, &
countless antique machines / engines / tools.
Couldn't do all that on a groundskeeper's wage
in other countries....except for Canuckistan.

Watch at least to "cage flats".

 

[Quintessence]

The "trick" of solving the supposed problem.

I mean, technically, there's no such thing as "problems" just in general. All problems are merely "supposed" and don't exist. They only exist because of the human refusal to accept things as they are. Massive crash in human population? Not a problem - species is overpopulated anyway and that's gotta happen eventually. Sixth mass extinction event caused by humans? Not a problem - we had five others on this planet, so what? Planet will still be here after humans have screwed it all up and are extinct along with all those other species.

But most folks aren't this non-anthropocentric and long-visioned. So you'll have to excuse most humans for recognizing that 120 MPH train barreling towards them that will sploot them into red paste as a "problem."

 

[Revoltingest]

Watch at least to "cage flats".

I advise Hong Kong residents
to be very wealthy.

In USA, government makes such housing
illegal, preferring that people be homeless.
It doesn't make sense, but government can
feel good about prohibiting substandard
housing without considering consequences
that are even worse.